What is Your Disbelief?

[Ben Dhyan]

Pantheism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

Panetheism the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe.

 

[Tomef]

What is Your Disbelief?

My disbelief is in Western Atheism/Agnosticism/Skepticism* and all of their other denominations, and Pauline-Christianity is the flip side* of Western Atheism and the vice versa, whatever their label/name may be, please, right?
Why to believe in them, right, please??!
*Western Atheism people (including all their hues and or denominations) sprang up to start with as they refused to accept a human God Jesus and Trinity in reaction to the prime creeds of Pauline-Christianity, right?

Regards

Uh no, wrong. Religions involve belief in some kind of higher power. Atheism/agnosticism/scepticism, as you put it, are more open-ended, acknowledging there is no reason to believe in any of the various gods humans have thought up over time, and taking the universe to be whatever it is, however understood by the individual. An attitude of acceptance and curiosity is assumed in place of a belief system. It only looks like a belief system to people who have such a system and are unable to imagine thinking without one.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Pantheism | Definition, Beliefs, History, & Facts

Pantheism: the doctrine that the universe conceived of as a whole is God and, conversely, that there is no God but the combined substance, forces, and laws that are manifested in the existing universe.

Iow, there is no God but God, it does not require a belief, existence just is.

God's reality is the one reality in which everything lives, moves, and has its being.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Uh no, wrong. Religions involve belief in some kind of higher power. Atheism/agnosticism/scepticism, as you put it, are more open-ended, acknowledging there is no reason to believe in any of the various gods humans have thought up over time, and taking the universe to be whatever it is, however understood by the individual. An attitude of acceptance and curiosity is assumed in place of a belief system. It only looks like a belief system to people who have such a system and are unable to imagine thinking without one.

Well, here is one explanation of what some people consider religion:
"religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life."

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

Now the problem with the word religion is that it has no objective referent. So we all including you and I do different cognitive interpretaions of human behaviour and call some of it religion.

 

[Tomef]

Well, here is one explanation of what some people consider religion:
"religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. It is also commonly regarded as consisting of the way people deal with ultimate concerns about their lives and their fate after death. In many traditions, this relation and these concerns are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitude toward gods or spirits; in more humanistic or naturalistic forms of religion, they are expressed in terms of one’s relationship with or attitudes toward the broader human community or the natural world. In many religions, texts are deemed to have scriptural status, and people are esteemed to be invested with spiritual or moral authority. Believers and worshippers participate in and are often enjoined to perform devotional or contemplative practices such as prayer, meditation, or particular rituals. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life."

Religion | Definition, Types, Beliefs, Symbols, Examples, Importance, & Facts | Britannica

Religion, human beings’ relation to that which they regard as holy, sacred, absolute, spiritual, divine, or worthy of especial reverence. Worship, moral conduct, right belief, and participation in religious institutions are among the constituent elements of the religious life.

www.britannica.com

Now the problem with the word religion is that it has no objective referent. So we all including you and I do different cognitive interpretaions of human behaviour and call some of it religion.

I’ve never come across any religion that doesn’t have sort of higher power, whether it’s a god, or nature, or some sort of idea of a collective human consciousness, as a referent.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I’ve never come across any religion that doesn’t have sort of higher power, whether it’s a god, or nature, or some sort of idea of a collective human consciousness, as a referent.

Yeah, it depends on what you take for granted as what a religion is. I just do it differently as I include some versions of natural world views. Not that you are wrong and I am right. Rather that we understand differently, that is all.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, it depends on what you take for granted as what a religion is. I just do it differently as I include some versions of natural world views. Not that you are wrong and I am right. Rather that we understand differently, that is all.

Natural world views as religions? The ones I've heard of have an idea of nature as representing or embodying a sort of spiritual or higher power in some sense.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Natural world views as religions? The ones I've heard of have an idea of nature as representing or embodying a sort of spiritual or higher power in some sense.

Well, here is my version of what a religion is in the end. A beleif sysyem of what the world is and how that and human life matter.

As a strong skeptic doing this for close to 30 years, I have yet to come across strong evidence/truth/proof for what objective reality really is and what matters in being a human.

 

[Tomef]

Well, here is my version of what a religion is in the end. A beleif sysyem of what the world is and how that and human life matter.

As a strong skeptic doing this for close to 30 years, I have yet to come across strong evidence/truth/proof for what objective reality really is and what matters in being a human.

That definition could also include philosophy, unless by 'matter' you mean having some sort of divinely ordained purpose.

 

[Tomef]

Well, here is my version of what a religion is in the end. A beleif sysyem of what the world is and how that and human life matter.

As a strong skeptic doing this for close to 30 years, I have yet to come across strong evidence/truth/proof for what objective reality really is and what matters in being a human.

Objective reality meaning the source of our experiences and perceptions?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That definition could also include philosophy, unless by 'matter' you mean having some sort of divinely ordained purpose.

Yes, I have found no way to clearly divide science, religion and philosophy into neat really different categories.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Objective reality meaning the source of our experiences and perceptions?

Yes.

 

[Tomef]

Yes, I have found no way to clearly divide science, religion and philosophy into neat really different categories.

There might be some crossover, but if you have a belief in the necessary existence of some sort of higher power, in the sense of something having agency in human affairs, then it’s religion, but not something that would arise from current philosophy or science. A hypothesis or question isn’t the same as contingent belief. If you assume the interactions of material things and forces (etc) as the only relevant factors, then it’s science, but not religion and not necessarily philosophy. If you attempt to construct and perhaps prove arguments to be sound purely through argumentation, without any necessary referent in the physical world that can be identified or which needs to be hypothesised, without the need for any supernatural considerations, then it can be philosophy, but not religion or science.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Uh no, wrong. Religions involve belief in some kind of higher power. Atheism/agnosticism/scepticism, as you put it, are more open-ended, acknowledging there is no reason to believe in any of the various gods humans have thought up over time, and taking the universe to be whatever it is, however understood by the individual. An attitude of acceptance and curiosity is assumed in place of a belief system. It only looks like a belief system to people who have such a system and are unable to imagine thinking without one.

A mind slammed shut against all possibility of God is not an open mind. And an attitude of acceptance and curiosity is unlikely to lead to certainty, about spiritual matters or any else.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There might be some crossover, but if you have a belief in the necessary existence of some sort of higher power, in the sense of something having agency in human affairs, then it’s religion, but not something that would arise from current philosophy or science. A hypothesis or question isn’t the same as contingent belief. If you assume the interactions of material things and forces (etc) as the only relevant factors, then it’s science, but not religion and not necessarily philosophy. If you attempt to construct and perhaps prove arguments to be sound purely through argumentation, without any necessary referent in the physical world that can be identified or which needs to be hypothesised, without the need for any supernatural considerations, then it can be philosophy, but not religion or science.

Yeah, the axiomatic assumptions of methodlogical naturalism is without evidence, proof and not true. So you make a distinction between assumptions and beliefs, that I do differently.
There is no reason to continue this as nobody in record history has solve the problem of strong knowledge as per justified, true, beliefs.
Rather in practice that was replaced with methodlogical naturalism as human cognition is as limited as human mobility (gravity and falling to your death) and we can't know everything and knowledge is a cognitive state of a brain in relationship to the rest of what is assumed to be the universe.

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, the axiomatic assumptions of methodlogical naturalism is without evidence, proof and not true. So you make a distinction between assumptions and beliefs, that I do differently.
There is no reason to continue this as nobody in record history has solve the problem of strong knowledge as per justified, true, beliefs.
Rather in practice that was replaced with methodlogical naturalism as human cognition is as limited as human mobility (gravity and falling to your death) and we can't know everything and knowledge is a cognitive state of a brain in relationship to the rest of what is assumed to be the universe.

You’re mixing ideas again. Defining the pursuits of different disciplines has nothing to do with ‘methodological naturalism’, what reality is or anything else of that sort. Whether the universe is real or not in any sense at, the distinctions between disciplines remain exactly the same. If you do a degree in philosophy, you are pursuing one set of questions in a set variety of ways, and so on. There are endless ways of delineating what those differences are by means of particular examples. Whether or not the things being studied are ‘real’ in a way you understand has absolutely nothing to do with it, in the same way that roasting a chicken and freezing some ice cubes aren’t dependent on whether the oven or the freezer are ‘real’. If you try and roast a chicken in the freezer, you won’t end up with a roast chicken. If you try to build an aeroplane using philosophy, you won’t get very far. If you rely on the Holy Spirit to guide your through rush hour traffic, you will total your car. The car, or the aeroplane, or whatever else not being part of ‘objective reality’ has no bearing whatsoever on questions about how things work, whether they are real or not. What don’t you get about that? If you have a headache, and take 2 paracetamol, your headache might ease. If you take some chemotherapy meds instead, they will have a different effect. Will you experience something different if reality is not as you perceive it? No, you won’t. If you lose a leg, and reject a prosthesis because you want god to grow you a new leg, will that happen? No it won’t. It doesn’t matter why - that is irrelevant to the difference between science, philosophy and religion.

 

[Tomef]

A mind slammed shut against all possibility of God is not an open mind. And an attitude of acceptance and curiosity is unlikely to lead to certainty, about spiritual matters or any else.

Your responses are kind of irritating for the assumptions you make. Respond to what is in the post, if you don’t understand it, then ask.

There might be some sort of being out there that would fit the definition of a god, who knows? Unless that being chooses to make itself known, we have no way of knowing. But imagining that being would just happen to correspond to one of the fictional gods humans have created is daft. Unless it is true that by thinking about or writing about something, we make it real, but then where are all the unicorns, and dragons, and magic wands? Those things don’t form part of human experience in the same way that cups and tea cakes do. Of course people can believe that isn’t the case, but it’s silly to think that represents some sort of elevated mindset. Believing that, if I think up a different realm where things I don’t see around me exist, I am being lifted spiritually is just a misconception of an aspect of human experience.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You’re mixing ideas again. Defining the pursuits of different disciplines has nothing to do with ‘methodological naturalism’, what reality is or anything else of that sort. Whether the universe is real or not in any sense at, the distinctions between disciplines remain exactly the same. If you do a degree in philosophy, you are pursuing one set of questions in a set variety of ways, and so on. There are endless ways of delineating what those differences are by means of particular examples. Whether or not the things being studied are ‘real’ in a way you understand has absolutely nothing to do with it, in the same way that roasting a chicken and freezing some ice cubes aren’t dependent on whether the oven or the freezer are ‘real’. If you try and roast a chicken in the freezer, you won’t end up with a roast chicken. If you try to build an aeroplane using philosophy, you won’t get very far. If you rely on the Holy Spirit to guide your through rush hour traffic, you will total your car. The car, or the aeroplane, or whatever else not being part of ‘objective reality’ has no bearing whatsoever on questions about how things work, whether they are real or not. What don’t you get about that? If you have a headache, and take 2 paracetamol, your headache might ease. If you take some chemotherapy meds instead, they will have a different effect. Will you experience something different if reality is not as you perceive it? No, you won’t. If you lose a leg, and reject a prosthesis because you want god to grow you a new leg, will that happen? No it won’t. It doesn’t matter why - that is irrelevant to the difference between science, philosophy and religion.

Yeah, but I am talking about the totality of being a human and living in the everyday world.

In effect your examples are limited to the objective. Now if you can show with evidence that all of the everyday world is objective, I will listen. But until then I will note that in practice the aspects of the everyday world are a combination of objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
And that all of your examples matter as per - be important or significant - is in the end at best inter-subjective and not objective.

Here:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

 

[Tomef]

Yeah, but I am talking about the totality of being a human and living in the everyday world.

In effect your examples are limited to the objective. Now if you can show with evidence that all of the everyday world is objective, I will listen. But until then I will note that in practice the aspects of the everyday world are a combination of objective, inter-subjective and subjective.
And that all of your examples matter as per - be important or significant - is in the end at best inter-subjective and not objective.

Here:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

Mikkel, the answer to what’s different between one thing and another isn’t ’are they real?’. That has nothing to do with the question.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your responses are kind of irritating for the assumptions you make. Respond to what is in the post, if you don’t understand it, then ask.

There might be some sort of being out there that would fit the definition of a god, who knows? Unless that being chooses to make itself known, we have no way of knowing. But imagining that being would just happen to correspond to one of the fictional gods humans have created is daft. Unless it is true that by thinking about or writing about something, we make it real, but then where are all the unicorns, and dragons, and magic wands? Those things don’t form part of human experience in the same way that cups and tea cakes do. Of course people can believe that isn’t the case, but it’s silly to think that represents some sort of elevated mindset. Believing that, if I think up a different realm where things I don’t see around me exist, I am being lifted spiritually is just a misconception of an aspect of human experience.

The bold one is a first person subjective evalution without evidence.
You have a subjective norm of in effect objective evidence. But the norm is without objective evidence. That is the problem of treating all human behaviours as if it must rely on objective evidence. It is not possible and it is already known as in effect cognitive, cultural and moral relativism.
A part, but only a part of the universe is objective, natural, physical and all that.